Thank you for this latest article Ian. I am glad that it has been published at Project Syndicate and not at The Conversation because if it had been published at The Conversation then I would not have been able to respond to it as I have been blocked from that site by the Politically Correct Commissars who run it.

I never thought that I would have agreed with any statement or policy that came out of the Trump White House but I have no qualms about agreeing with General Mike Flynn when he says that “Fear of Muslims is rational”. Nor do I object to Steve Bannon claiming that the West is engaged in global war with Islam.

To liken this conflict with the anti-Semitism of pre- or post-WWII, as you do here Ian, is both mischievous and disingenuous. It is nothing more than a flimsy and very transparent attempt to justify attacking those who are prepared to stand up against the onslaught of Islam by making a completely bogus comparison.

I am an avowed atheist Ian. I have no time for any religion at all. However, I would say that I grew up in a very Jewish area of my home city. I went to school with Jews and at times Jews were amongst my very best friends. Some of that Jewishness to which I was exposed to then washed over onto me.

Let me tell you Ian, a crucial and key difference between the Jews and Muslims is that fact that the Jews do not want to convert you. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, at no time in history did we ever witness Jews publically demonstrating in the following way:

I invite any reader of my contribution to this article to simply Google:

image behead those who insult the prophet

and you will see many photographs of Muslims holding placards with signs on them which advocate the beheading of non-believers and those who insult the prophet, etc. Ian, what do you expect any non-Muslim to make of this? If Trump and his motley crew are prepared to stand up against this onslaught then I have no other choice than to support them.

You also say Ian that,

“Jews, alleged by the Nazis to pose an existential threat to Germany, could be persecuted – and later murdered en masse – with total impunity.”

The implication here clearly being that one day the Muslims may be faced with the same fate. Wake up Ian, don’t you think that there are plenty of Muslims who have the same fate planned for the infidels? And that means you too, Ian unless of course, you are planning on becoming a convert.

Then you say

“But if all Muslims are antagonized and humiliated, terrorism will become a great deal worse.”

This is nothing by a craven and sniveling excuse for a policy of outright appeasement to be taken against the attack on western values which is being carried out by Islam. Policies of propitiation only encourage these religious fanatics. They must be laughing ‘up their sleeve’ when they learn that westerners are urging such a pathetic response.

Ian, followers of this religion have the potential to destroy western civilization and return us to a Dark Age. I for one will not sit-by idly without speaking out against this extremely serious existential threat.

The article below was, surprisingly, in this week’s Project Syndicate, a weekly periodical which focuses on global and micro economics.

The author states so eloquently what I have been thinking and saying since Trump descended the escalator, demeaning Mexicans while announcing his candidacy.

The use of Nazi style rhetoric through fear mongering is intentional, his effort to create divisiveness and instill a sense of panic that only through his actions, can be diffused.

My worst fear, which I have voiced to a few of you, is what happens if there is a lone wolf attack, by an individual who happens to be Muslim.

The reactions, repercussions and possible retaliations in the US and Canada (as what happened in my dear Quebec City by a white supremacist and acknowledged Trump supporter), could be severe.

His campaign and words have enabled and emboldened racists and bigots everywhere. We saw what happened in the province of Quebec in 2013, when the Parti Quebecois tried to implement their version of a Charter of Values which would ban head scarves and kippas... the incidence of racist attacks increased significantly.

The Muslims of today are the European Jews of the 1930s and ‘40s. Are the Mexicans the Roma, or Gypsies, of that period?

In 1925, Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf, laid out his vision to the world. On the campaign trail, in his First 100 Day plan, Trump’s intentions were made clear.

He has populated his cabinet and surrounded himself with individuals who have the ability to follow through. Contrary to recent media hyperbole, Bannon is NOT the President, Trump is. The mandate of Bannan (and Miller) is to follow through and execute the Presidents objectives.

In my naivety, I had sincerely hoped that, once ascending into the most influential office in the world, he would be humbled by its history and the power he holds through it. I had hoped that he would surround himself with the best people in his cabinet. That all the BS. and divisive comments he made during his campaign was simply rhetoric to get him where he wanted to be.

But it isn't.

On Sept 11th, 1941, in Des Moines, Iowa, Lindbergh, a highly profiled member of the AFC (America First Committee), made one of the most notorious anti-Semitic speeches, in American history. Today, when I hear the vile verbiage or read about the rise in attacks on Muslims on US or Canadian soil, I cannot help but to think about the words of Lindbergh and the AMC.

Trump has made clear his vision to the world and implementation initiated.

My best friend asked me if I thought that all the people who voted for Trump were bigots. My response was simple. I DON'T, but I do believe that every bigot and racist voted for him.

My personal opinion not withstanding, is that it is okay to agree with Trump’s economic and political philosophies. But one has to stand up against bigotry and racism.

Bigotry and racism supersedes everything else.

One’s silence to today's politics, in itself, speaks volumes.
The tipping point has not, as yet, been reached. It is still within Congress’s ability to stop him.

Anti-semitism is a terrible thing but why focus on this alone while anti-palestinism is common in the USA. Recently Fordham University banned a group "Students for Justice in Palestine". Many US universities are supported by Jewish billionaires and in return they often ask to ban all discussions on Israeli human right violations and the cruel occupation.

Would there really be a Israeli Palestinian problem if when The UN granted Israel statehood the Palestinians would have received the same positive support as the Israelis both countries could have flourished and today Palestinians (who certainly have the capability) could have had the same quality of life as there Israeli neighbors.

by generational forgetting, fascism is on the rise again. We are now a part of a historical experiment: can humanity actually learn from history, or does history have to be cyclically repeated because education fails by definition and only personal experience will do.

So called Islamophobia is just one new element in an old game. One can see that this is the old game because right underneath the new populists, just under the surface, one finds the old, brightly burning antisemitism of the Mein Kampf kind. Even though Islamic fundamentalism is helpful to this cause as a new fear factor, it cannot replace the Jews as a menacing force that is secretly running the world. That angle just refuses to go away.
I am horrified to see the hydra re-emerging in the western world, but I am at least grateful that more are finally willing to speak out and call this "populism" for what it actually is.

My uncle and aunt ended up in Kz camps, so I am not fond of nazis. They were not jews, but resistance. Nazism did not stop at the end of WW2. The Vatican granted top nazis (unofficial) asylum. More than 60 went to the Middle East to support dictators and The muslim brotherhood with military advice and most of all propaganda against jews, based on nazi phamphlets.
The muslim brotherhood are the ones promoting Sharia law, killing of jews, Caliphate and suicide bombings all in the name of Allah. I think it is a terror organisation! Thankfully most muslims in western societies are peaceful people, but too many wants Sharia Law to stand above constitution.

'Islamist violence will be met by emergency laws, state-sanctioned torture, and limits on civil rights – in a word, authoritarianism.'

That is the objective of Islamic violence and also the environment in some Islamic countries. The main victims of Islamic violence by a very large margin are Muslims. 'They might look moderate' --- really? Since when has violence been moderate

From the data I dont see much in common between 1930s Jews and 2010s Muslims so I dont see it is a 'new anti semitism'. In fact with the leaning towards illiberal views and the support declared in some instances to violence against those that do not agree with them some Muslims appear to have some commonality with the oppressors of Jews in the first half of the 20th century. This is undoubtedly a dangerous situation for as you might have noticed the vast majority of 1930s Germans were not fascists but nevertheless at the time allowed a small violent minority to lead them down a dodgy road.

I have not said that I support Trump, what I have said is that if the Muslim community takes no steps to change their position and outlook that external action on that community in an attempt to regulate activity is the logical outcome particularly physically within the West. I have also said that IBs point of view is no solution and drifts too close to the apologists that appear in the media. At what point do you get worried about saying killing people is not acceptable. As though upsetting people with words who kill wantonly is really going to make then kill more, they are already doing it. Furthermore the violence in the main is not in the West and it is Muslim on Muslim in the main

I don't think your latest post adds anything. I already made clear I thought many Muslims in the West hold problematic illiberal attitudes, but largely non-violent ones. You are intent on only focusing on Muslim majority country attitudes, where indeed you will find a handful of countries (e.g. Bangladesh, Egypt, Afghanistan) where sympathy for suicide bombing and violence against civilians reaches double digit percentages.

But you have not addressed my arguments for why Trumpism is playing into the hands of Islamists who, like Steve Bannon, seek a Clash of Civilisations. That is what this article was about.

A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified. 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe attacks are either somewhat justified or often justified, 18% in Malaysia, 7% in Iraq, 15% in Jordan, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories. The survey did not include some Muslim nations, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Yemen, Syria, and Libya, but did include densely populated Muslim countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria and Indonesia.[36] According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55. Also 36% of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so. (Wiki)

This is in the main not an Infidels problem, it is a Muslim problem. Why for example do you think so many flee Eritrea which is a small country. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), nearly 37,000 Eritreans applied for asylum in 38 European countries over the first 10 months of last year (2014), compared with about 13,000 in the same period in 2013. It puts the total Eritrean refugee population at more than 321,000 (2015).

1) Muslims in the UK and France have not achieved high or healthy levels of social and economic integration. This in part is due to very distinct and to me problematic Muslim civic, social and moral values that are far apart from the Western societal centre of gravity. On the flip side, as for example this week's report into how candidates with non-Muslim names are THREE times more likely to get called to job interviews in the U.K. than people with Muslim names, there is much the rest of us need to do to advance integration.

2) inflammatory, discriminatory language that lumps Muslims into the Islamist camp, and its violent ideology, are both inaccurate and immoral. About 4% of British Muslims (ICM poll April 2016) sympathise with people who commit terrorist actions as a form of political protest. This language, which Trump has used, also plays directly into the hands of Islamist terrorists. That's not an especially left-wing view, it's the view of conservative politicians in Europe, counter-terrorism experts, David Petraeus, Senator McCain, and on and on.

It's not for me to say whether Trump should throw away his manifesto... he should never have embarked on anti-Muslim demagoguery in the first place. I don't support multiculturalism. But I will not accept your implied binary construct that there is either the Trump way on one hand, or on the other a multiculturalist approach that absolves Muslims of the responsibility to integrate.

The experience in France - for example - appears to be less one of social exclusion of Muslims than the self exclusion of Muslims. In the UK there has been the experience of the likes of Anjem Choudary openly preaching hate. In both countries there appears to be issues with apologists routinely and openly defending fundamentalism often via the media. Although there seems to be some slow movement from the Muslim community towards condemning violence it has been slow. If IB wants to see risk reduced in this arena he needs to convince Muslim communities in the West that they have to take steps to engage as citizens. When in Rome do as the Romans do. That would seriously improve matters. And if you say that the British or the French or Americans do not want to assimilate when they go abroad temporarily or permanently, then I would agree that can happen but that is for the locality to deal with. The French complain about the English taking over the Dordonge. Native customs and practice should be respected or it becomes a form of colonialism. I suggest you visit some areas if you think otherwise. Even Angela Merkel with her come on in invite to a group which has turned out to contain some 50 to 60% economic migrants rather than refugees has accepted belatedly that multiculturalism has problems. You are left with only one outcome, that compliance with established social norms will be requested. To do so is hardly seeking apocalypse now and the smell of napalm in the morning. I can't say I like Trump but he was democratically elected and he is doing the things he was elected for by Americans. Unlike most elected he has not thrown the manifesto away. Is that what you require, that those elected throw the manifesto away every time without exception. Like the disastrous Tony Blair who didnt do much other than making it up as he went along, or GW Bush who clearly decided to go to war without much consideration about outcomes and the truly appalling Donald Rumsfeld who said 'we dont do post war'. Those are tough acts to top. And putting a hold on movements from 7 countries is going to cause a world melt down?

You need to recognise this is a short article, not trying to encompass an explanation of Islamism and its roots. Buruma's books (e.g Murder in Amsterdam) show a deep and thoughtful approach to the topic.

Whilst it is correct that most Islamist violence is directed towards other Muslims, Islamism is both a struggle within Islam for a "back to the future" vision of modernity, and also a fight against the West, which is blamed (in this ideology) for the Islamic world's backwardness.

I struggle to see how one can argue against Buruma's main point that :-
'if all Muslims are antagonized and humiliated, terrorism will become a great deal worse. And what a “global war on Islam” will do to the highly combustible politics in the Middle East and Africa can easily be guessed.'

What terrorists (of all ilk) want :-
1) Revenge (for perceived or actual wrongs against their group, nation or community).
2) Renown - there is no such thing as bad publicity for their grievance /cause.
3) Reaction - a change in policy (e.g. Spain withdraws from Iraq after Madrid Bombing) or some other governmental reaction.

In the case of Islamists, we know they want a state of civil war between Muslims in the West and their non-Muslim neighbours. We know this because they write this and their propaganda is aimed at this outcome.

Inflammatory, illiberal, discriminatory over-reactions in the West are a goal of Islamists. Islamism cannot dismantle our liberal democracies. Only we can do that to ourselves. This is why the author closes:
"it is perhaps not too cynical to imagine that Trump’s ideologues do wish to see blood. Islamist violence will be met by emergency laws, state-sanctioned torture, and limits on civil rights – in a word, authoritarianism. This might be what Trump wants. But it certainly is not the outcome that most Americans, including some of those who voted for him, would wish for."

The full paragraph is -
'Today’s enemies of Islam often use precisely this argument: Muslims lie to infidels. Their religion is not spiritual, but political. They might look moderate, but that is a lie. What we must fear, in Gaffney’s words, is “this stealthy, subversive kind of jihad.”...'

The proposition made by IB is that those against Islam argue that 'They might look moderate, but that is a lie'.

The problem is that violence is far more mainstream in the Islamic world than is palatable for most in the West, including one government that routinely uses public beheading in its legal system. In other words violence is embedded in the social structure. The whole comparison between Muslims and Jews is weak, in the 1930s Jews did not engage in international terror campaigns and invade countries. Nor were 2 elements in the Jewish world routinely fighting and killing one another century after century with both parties claiming spiritual supremacy against one another

The point is that Islamic violence in the main is wrought on Muslims not Westerners so IB arguments as to fallout are misplaced. This is a Islamic problem which can only be sorted out by Islamic society(s). The problem is not in the West where IB seems to think it is. Furthermore in the West overzealous supporters of politically correct freedom of speech have inadvertently enabled race hate and religious hate speech routinely on the streets in the West.

Implicit in IBs argument is the idea somehow some (unspecified) accommodation should be made by Western plebs. This is fine but as in all accommodations the devil is in the detail. There is nothing moderate about violence and by definition the violence is coming from Islamic elements. That is something the Islamic community has to deal with.

In short, IB does not identify the main problem, nor does he offer any solution to it which is hardly surprising, instead he wants to imagine a code of conduct for Western plebs and that if this chivalric code is not followed it will be our downfall. There is a reason why some liberal minded European countries are moving to ask migrants to abide by Western social norms as a requirement of residency, it is because some have refused to accept them

Personally I have nothing against Muslims, any more than I have anything against Buddhists or other religions but - at least in the West - Buddhists are not running terror campaigns last time I looked, or walking the streets demanding we wear Buddhist robes

"Today’s enemies of Islam often use precisely this argument:...They might look moderate, but that is a lie"

He was caricaturing how enemies of Islam lump all Muslims together, regardless of whether they believe in the use of violence in the name of their religion. He emphatically was not implying that violence is 'moderate'. So, what is the point you are making?

Just as Christianity has a religion about Judaism, so too does Islam have a religion about Christianity. This is Islam's advantage since it was created later in time. It is useful to know that Islam was created by intellectuals in the Persian (Parthian) court. It's purpose was to be a "counter-Christianity", i.e. to act as a bulwark against Roman created Christianity. Islam is eternally hostile to Christianity just as Christianity was always hostile to Jews until the holocaust made many Europeans question the fundamentals of their faith. American Protestants responded by reversing opinion and supporting Israel, making up a prophetical point of view as justification.

The Muslim world has been driven crazy by decades of anti-Jewish propaganda. The cure for the Muslim world is the same as for fascist Europe: de-Nazification. This means Muslims must be deprogrammed from the brainwashing they have received.

You are right: this hysteria against muslims is dangerous. However you are hiding the fact that It is mostly propagated by zionnist Jews. Why are you hiding it?

Also you are hiding the fact that massive immigration of Muslim aliens into Christian countries have been mostly encouraged, in the first place (before turning islamophobic) by left Jewish activists under the guise of "multiculturalism" and "diversity". Here also : why are you hiding it?

It is quite strange. Isn't it?

You are also saying one other thing very strange: in the 30, you say: "There was no revolutionary movement among Jews then, committing atrocities..." Really? And what about communism?

I hope that you read German. The book is not translated into another language. Perhaps no English or French publisher had the courage to publish a book telling the truth which Jews don't want to be known.

In commenting on a writing that comes directly from the Faculty Lounge, it is often hard to decide where to begin. This is one of those pieces. It reminds me of Samuel Johnson’s statement, “He is not only dull himself; he is the cause of dullness in others." It is almost impossible not to acknowledge that modern Western Civilization is at war with Radical Islam. The facts do not lie on this account – since 9.11.2001 there have been 30,277 deadly Islamic Terror attacks worldwide. In 2016 alone, there were 2,476 Islamic Terror attacks in 61 countries that killed 21,239 people and injured 26,677 more. It is hardly “islamophobic” (a typical leftist insult) to be vigilant in our countries’ defenses and judicious in who is allowed entry to the USA. Sadly, we are in Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” with Radical Islam and this war will continue until Islam reforms itself. Similarly taking precautions in allowing migrants to come to the USA from failed states – Syria, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and even Iraq – is not prejudice. It is required since there are no official, functioning state mechanisms to verify who these people really are who they claim to be. “Intelligence and police work” in Muslim communities in the US will certainly not stop Islamic Terror. It will take interdiction of radical cells worldwide, surveillance both inside and outside the US and the conduct of an unconventional war to destroy the will of Radical Islam. And finally, the author has taken a step into his own “Twilight Zone” by claiming that the Trump Administration wants to see blood and that it will sanction torture and limitations of civil rights. Mr. Buruma needs to spend a little more time outside the Faculty Lounge and join the rest of us in the real world.

Ian Buruma maintains that Islamophobia in the West is old wine in new bottles - a remake of anti-Semitism. It's doubtful whether Jews would appreciate any racial or religious hatred be compared to anti-Semitism, because of its unique nature in history - the Holocaust.
The author sees Trump's Islamophobia as a leaf out of the Nazi playbook in the 1930s, only with a different target. Trump had vowed to bar Muslims from entering the US, following the San Bernardino shootings in December 2015. Though seen as lynch mob politics, Trump translated words into action and signed an executive order days after he took office, backed by dubious figures in his entourage. While Michael Flynn claims that “fear of Muslims is rational,” Steve Bannon is convinced that the “Judeo-Christian” world "is engaged in a global war with Islam." Frank Gaffney sees Muslims as “termites,” who “hollow out the structure of the civil society and other institutions.”
The choice of Trump's noxious slogan "America First," didn't seem to raise hackles among Jews in the US and in Israel. The slogan was the name of the isolationist, defeatist, anti-Semitic national organisation that urged the US to appease Adolf Hitler. Its spokesman, the prominent aviator, Charles Lindbergh, was notoriously pro-German and an anti-Semite. He blamed the Jews for dragging the US into war with the Nazis. His racial ideology - “we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races” - speaks for and to many white Americans.
The author says even though Bannon, Flynn and Trump are Islamophobes, their prejudices against Jews still persist. It doesn't help that Trump's daughter is married to an Orthodox Jew. That Jared Kushner has let his father-in-law omit "Jews or anti-Semitism in his statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day" shows Bannon and Flynn have Trump's ear. During his campaign Trump spread conspiracy theories about wealthy, international Jewish bankers plotting to destroy America and taking over the world. They were alleged to bribe politicians with their wealth or dominate through the powerful media they own. Yet it didn't hurt his relationship with Jewish donors, like Sheldon Adelson and supporters in Israel.
The author believes there may be "another difference, however, between the persecution of Jews and contemporary hostility to Muslims. Prewar anti-Semitism was directed not just at religious Jews, but also – and perhaps especially – at assimilated Jews, who were no longer easy to identify in any way as distinct. Prejudice against Muslims would appear to be less racial, and more cultural and religious." But Trump's ban doesn't affect Muslims with deep pockets, and those from countries where his business has vested interests.
Trump's Islamophobia has little in common with the history of anti-Semitism in Europe that the author points out. He has no qualms about adopting Muslim "conspiracies" spread by "enemies of Islam" for political gains. As Trump's agenda during the campaign was long on promises and short on substance, he needs to show his voters that he is making good on his pleges. But he can only focus on issues he can deal with, like stoking fear, imposing the Muslim ban, and scraping America's agreements with foreign allies. It is more difficult to deliver when it comes to turning the clock back, creating jobs and boosting growth.
Even though Islamist terrorism poses a huge threat to the international community, Trump’s Islamophobia is a problem for everybody. It undermines every attempt to build trust between the West and the Muslim world. His "global war on Islam" would alienate many Muslims who should help fight Islamist extremism. There is fear that Trump's advisors, who out of "crass ignorance" and belligerence might delve into "emergency laws, state-sanctioned torture, and limits on civil rights" to establish an authoritarian regime. "This might be what Trump wants. But it certainly is not the outcome that most Americans, including some of those who voted for him, would wish for." Indeed, Trump is a lesson for his voters to learn.

Trump is actually Narcissism at its best, this is the same creed that must follow its followers till they become irrelevant. Imagine how diabolical this can be that America, which is the safest place on earth could be converted to a fortress for conducting imaginary wars that would satisfy the constituency that voted for him and who were duped into believing that America is unsafe.

I would question how much genuinely anti-Semitic Trump really could be, given that he has a Jewish son-in-law (and "special advisor") whose grandparents were Holocaust survivors. That said, I really don't get anti-Semitism as a concept. If you look at what Askenazi Jews in particular have contributed to the USA, well, these are people you want on your side when things get tough. Without them, you wouldn't have Wall Street, the nuclear bomb, or Hollywood.

"America first" is not racist. You use strawman arguments and innuendo to fill in a bigoted analysis. I could use the "Trumpanzee" usage to claim that liberals dehumanize Trump supporters. I could use the Shia-Sunni conflict and intolerance in the Muslim world to make the opposite claim.
Tolerance is a two-way street. When the Muslim world gets rid of the blasphemy laws, stops Sunni-Shia killings, and moderates are no longer irrelevant, I would expect the fear to dissipate.

Actually, Tolerance is not a two way street. We do not need an Islamic world enlightenment ending blasphemy laws etc in order for us at home to :
- have a realistic understanding of the relative risk of terrorism directly affecting us (e.g. about a 1 in 20 million lifetime risk in the USA).
- maintain and uphold civil rights equally, regardless of race or creed.
- understand the proportion of Muslims who support jihadi violence is tiny, without denying it is a threat that needs continued vigilance.
- understand that since the beginning of time, demagogic politicians have used Fear of the Other and Exaggerated Threats to win votes.

'Acts of Islamist terror in Western countries can be prevented only through good intelligence and police work, particularly in Muslim communities.'

This simply flies in the face of reality. That reality being, that since 1978 and the initial support of jihadis in Afghanistan to embarrass the Russians, giving them 'their Vietnam', the West has been alternately using and invading Muslim-majority countries. Until this fact is admitted and addressed, and these utterly corrosive wars wound down, all the intelligence and policing in the world won't help us - because our actions from Libya to Pakistan, create jihadis - or at least very angry people using that route to express violence - faster than we can destroy them. Far faster. AS if an antibiotic, instead of defeating an infection, merely exacerbated it. Very, very largely we have only ourselves to blame.

Not that this is welcome news anywhere. But the truth is having a bad time all over, lately.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.